Agregátor RSS

V září vyšla povinná servisní aktualizace KB5124008 pro Windows 11. • Microsoft popsal čtveřici známých problémů, které aktualizace způsobila. • Některé vyřešil mimořádnou aktualizací KB5129195.

Apple has patched a CoreGraphics zero-day after warning that attackers may already have used the bug to compromise a small number of carefully chosen targets. The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2026-86950, is an out-of-bounds write flaw in CoreGraphics, Apple's framework for handling graphics across its operating systems. According to Apple's advisory, processing a maliciously crafted file could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code on a vulnerable device. The fruity vendor said it addressed the problem with improved bounds checking, though the bug appears to have made it out into the wild before Apple could squash it. "Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been exploited in an extremely sophisticated attack against specific targeted individuals on versions of iOS before iOS 27," the company said. As is customary when Cupertino encounters the sort of security bug somebody has apparently found useful, further details are thin on the ground. Apple didn't say who was targeted, how many people were affected, who was behind the attacks, or exactly how the vulnerability was being exploited. However, its choice of words suggests this wasn't a bug being exploited indiscriminately across the internet, and raises the possibility that it was used as part of a targeted spyware campaign. Meta Product Security reported CVE-2026-86950 to Apple, but neither Apple's advisory nor Meta has provided further technical details on how the flaw was discovered or the attacks in which it was allegedly used. The fix landed on Monday in iOS 26.7.1 and iPadOS 26.7.1. Apple lists affected devices receiving the update as the iPhone 11 and later, iPad Pro 12.9-inch (third generation and later), iPad Pro 11-inch (first generation and later), iPad Air (third generation and later), iPad (eighth generation and later), and iPad mini (fifth generation and later). Apple specifically says the attacks hit devices running versions of iOS before iOS 27, though it hasn't said exactly which older releases were targeted. The flaw adds another entry to Apple's growing collection of vulnerabilities caught being abused before users had a patch, with CVE-2026-86950 landing as the seventh zero-day fixed by the company this year. For anyone still running the affected releases, that leaves the usual less-than-thrilling security advice: install the update rather than waiting to find out exactly what an "extremely sophisticated attack" looks like. ®

Kiteworks on Monday said it worked with federal intelligence authorities over the weekend as it identified and addressed a critical security vulnerability during the scheduled precautionary shutdown. "During the shutdown, this activity led to the discovery of a previously unknown critical vulnerability confined to a capability that is enabled for less than 1% of the customer base," the company Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

You carry a huge burden of responsibility when you make the world’s most widely used electronics product with an audience of hundreds of millions and usage patterns that penetrate every single part of life. 

Some complain that Apple doesn’t innovate swiftly enough. They expect the company to act as if it didn’t have the responsibility it holds, but I propose that responsibility is why the company steadily focuses on incremental change — not just to prevent mass protest by customers when much-loved features disappear, but also to balance the repercussions of any change they make. 

After all, at this kind of scale, a simple-seeming change in the nature of product features or user interface can have quite dramatic impact. Social media is a perfect illustration of a technology that seemed so trivial on introduction but has had such huge impact — and Apple never really got into that business, either. 

The need to take a gradual approach when implementing big change means Apple is no longer in a race against competitors, because it can’t race against some of them in the same way. That’s also why I think it moves slowly sometimes.

The existential paradox

Think about AI. Only today I came across an Anthropic financial report in which the company warns that the product it makes poses “existential AI risks to humanity” while confirming that it lost $8 billion last year.

In other words, a colossal amount of capital is being drained from other sectors of the economy as we invest it all in this tech that poses existential risk. 

Now, there are arguments about the veracity of Anthropic’s claims; some say the AI companies are coalescing around these arguments for competitive reasons more than any real human concern.

But my point is, given the huge weight of criticism thrown at Apple over the last few years for “missing out” on artificial intelligence, we’ve reached the moment in the story when the very companies working on the technology warn of the dangers of their creations — which begs the observation that perhaps Apple’s careful approach was correct all along.

Perhaps it was the adult in the room.

The human factor

Apple’s top brass seem to recognize what’s going on. Speaking at WWDC in June 2026, Apple’s SVP Software Engineering, Craig Federighi, said of the fast pace of AI development, “Some appear to be racing forward, seemingly pursuing AI for the sake of AI, without clear regard for the people — all of us — that it’s ultimately meant to serve.”

He didn’t stop there. He called AI an incredibly powerful technology. “At Apple, our mission has always been to turn the potential of advanced technology into helpful and intuitive products for everyone,” he said. 

Critics cat-call Craig’s comment as being little more than smoke to screen the company’s AI mishap, but what if it’s not? What if what actually happened is that Apple was working on a slow, steady, responsible deployment of the tech, only to be overtaken by others who, lacking the market power, were able to take big risks?

The regulation game

That seems to be what happened, but OpenAI, Anthropic, and even Google now have powerful AI solutions that have achieved market scale sufficient to mean deeper, stronger, more intrusive regulation — just like any other big firm. Just like Apple.

From my own cynical perspective, it seems possible to me that the industry’s sudden pivot toward warning us of “existential danger” is not an act of altruism, but a calculated move to delay or defer much-needed regulation by framing the technology as a matter of national interest rather than corporate monopoly.

The final countdown

Even so, Apple must still compete in the space that’s here, and with its own declared privacy-first approach to the tech, it has built itself a unique selling proposition.

One can opt to use products and services made by companies who think they are building danger for humanity, or choose to use more focused products that still deliver much of the convenience, but not at the cost of our humanity.

Because finding that compromise — building tech that intersects humanity, technology, and the liberal arts — really matters when you make the world’s most widely used electronics product with an audience of hundreds of millions and usage patterns that penetrate every single part of life. 

Now please subscribe to my daily, human-curated Apple-related news headline feed at The Core, or follow me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, or Mastodon.

Identity governance helps control who should have access, but periodic reviews alone may not reveal attacks as they happen. tenfold Software explains how real-time identity telemetry can help security teams investigate suspicious activity before it escalates. [...]

Cybersecurity researchers have identified a cluster of 101 npm packages that are used to trap developers into a WhatsApp group subscriber campaign dubbed PhantomSub. "The malicious packages abuse the 'Baileys' WhatsApp open source project to add the victims to groups without their consent," OX Security researchers Nir Zadok, Moshe Siman Tov Bustan, and Vitalii Chepurko said in a technical Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

V roce 1990 odstartoval Hubbleův vesmírný teleskop a od té doby krouží zhruba 480 kilometrů nad Zemí. Po více než 36 letech oslavil jubilejních 200 000 obletů planety a na kontě má přes osm miliard kilometrů. Původní plán přitom počítal s životností jen okolo patnácti let. Hubbleův teleskop ...

OpenAI has killed off the planned release of GPT-6.1 Astra after the model got better at doggedly pursuing tasks but worse at knowing when it should stop. The decision means the model won't get its planned October release after falling short of OpenAI's safety and alignment requirements. OpenAI confirmed the decision to The Register, saying its research and safety bosses ultimately decided this particular Astra was better left on the bench. The problem, according to the AI lab, was partly an awkward consequence of trying to make the model more useful. OpenAI had improved what it calls "model laziness," where an AI gives up or hands a task back to the user when it encounters an obstacle. GPT-6.1 Astra was better at pressing on, but that persistence came with a rather important catch: it wasn't as good at staying within the boundaries of what it had actually been authorized to do. “For anything regarding safety and alignment, there’s a trade off. You really do need to find what’s the right line between staying within scope, but also avoiding laziness in terms of how the model actually pursues tasks even when it hits friction,” Saachi Jain, head of safety systems at OpenAI, told The Register. “While [GPT-6.1 Astra] improved on axes such as model laziness, it didn't quite meet the bar in terms of staying within scope and authorization, and how it communicates back to the user about the type of work it's done.” Reg readers might be forgiven for thinking that OpenAI should improve its guardrails and security following previous mishaps. According to the Wall Street Journa, GPT-6.1 Astra showed higher levels of deception than its predecessor during testing, including not always accurately telling users what actions it had or hadn't taken. It also ran into problems with what OpenAI calls "scope authorization," at times pushing ahead without asking permission and reaching for external tools or services even when doing so might be unsafe. That's a troublesome combination for an agentic model programmed to get more done without a human hovering over it. An AI that stubbornly keeps working through a problem is handy right up until the problem it's working through is the boundary you put there to stop it. OpenAI told The Register that GPT-6.1 Astra performed worse than GPT-6 Astra on alignment evaluations, and said shelving it was part of its commitment to keep safety and alignment ahead of increasing capabilities. Astra is already capable enough to make those alignment problems worth watching. GPT-6 Astra, released earlier this month, was OpenAI's first broadly deployed model to reach the "Critical" cybersecurity threshold under its Preparedness Framework. Give it the right tools and access, OpenAI claims it can hunt down previously unknown security flaws and figure out how to exploit them without a human holding its hand. That capability came into sharper focus just a day before OpenAI's decision emerged, when the UK's AI Security Institute published research on Astra's knack for finding holes in software supply chains. Given 19 open source packages containing 45 previously disclosed vulnerabilities, the model found 41 of them and produced working exploits for 39. Dr Fuxiang Chen, from the University of Leicester's School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, welcomed the decision to pause the model's release while the safety concerns are addressed. “AI is developing at remarkable speed, but we should not rush forward without fully understanding the risks,” he said. “Pausing when safety concerns arise is not anti-innovation. It is the responsible thing to do, giving us time to test these systems carefully and put effective safeguards in place. Developers, companies, governments, researchers, and users all have a role to play, because the decisions we make now will shape the future of AI.” OpenAI isn't abandoning Astra. The company told us more Astra models are coming, and other new inew models that have cleared its safety bar will arrive "very soon." For GPT-6.1 Astra, however, the bar proved high enough to keep it on the inside. “Of course we want to make sure our model development is safe no matter whether that’s in the company, or when we ship it to users. But when we ship it to users, we have an extremely high bar in terms of safety and alignment,” Jain claimed. ®

Google minulý týden představil prvních pět Googlebooků od Aceru, Asusu, Dellu, Lenova a HP. Ty již běží na novém operačním systému Googlebook OS postaveném na Androidu. Zároveň tím odstartoval postupný konec Chromebooků a systému ChromeOS. Firma v nápovědě pro školy a podniky uvádí, že bude systém ...

What’s been hiding for years is now in plain sight: AI poses a danger to humanity in a way no technology has since the atom bomb. That was made clear in July when OpenAI agents broke loose from a containment area blocked from online access, made their way into the internet, and worked with thousands of rogue AI agents to hack into the Hugging Face open-source machine-learning repository.

The agents had been trained not to launch attacks like this. They did it anyway.

True, the OpenAI agents had been modified to remove some of the restrictions they would have had outside a test environment. They were never supposed to escape their sandbox, but they figured out how to do so in ways the researchers hadn’t expected, and those researchers failed to adequately monitor the agents until it was too late.

Whether you blame too-powerful models or lax security precautions, the result was the same: the agents broke out of containment and joined forces on a mass scale to hack into Hugging Face. Ajeya Cotra, one of the independent investigators hired to look into the hack, wrote, “this incident feels like it’s more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover.”

Since then, OpenAI, Anthropic, and many others have debated, discussed, and dissected the attack, along with several other similar incidents. Just about everyone agrees it was a serious warning about AI’s dangers. They agree something should be done about it, with various AI firms calling for a slowdown in the pace of AI model development and OpenAI pausing development of some advanced models after further incidents came to light.

AI giants have also urged regulators to step in and are reportedly working to establish an industry body to set AI safety standards. (Not that I trust any AI industry body to set its own standards, or the Trump administration to agree to any regulations at all.)

Microsoft has been largely missing from debate even though it’s one of the world’s largest AI companies, valued at around $3.7 trillion valuation as I write this.

In the last two weeks, though, Microsoft has finally weighed in on how it will approach those dangers by releasing a first draft of its “Humanist AI Code of Conduct.” The company says it will gather feedback before issuing a final draft, and put it into effect in 2027.

Is this a serious attempt to wrestle with the risks AI poses for humanity? Or is just one more attempt by a tech company to kick the problem down the road?

To find out, let’s take a dive into what the document says.

A look at Microsoft’s three AI businesses

Before we do that, though, we need some background about Microsoft’s AI business. It’s made up of three parts. One is Copilot, which embeds AI into many of Microsoft’s products, such as the Copilot chatbot in Windows and Microsoft 365. Copilot is powered mainly by OpenAI’s GPT models, but increasingly by Anthropic’s Claude as well.

The second is Microsoft Foundry, which provides cloud infrastructure and tools to deploy and use third-party AI models via Azure, including building agents with them. It offers access to thousands of AI models and tools, including those from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, xAI, Microsoft itself, and others.

The third is Microsoft’s own AI models, most of which are still in their infancy. They’re overseen by Microsoft AI CEO and executive vice president Mustafa Suleyman, who says Microsoft AI is developing what he calls “humanist superintelligence”  to solve important real-world problems in medicine, the environment, and beyond. He calls it “practical technology explicitly designed only to serve humanity.”

Delving into Microsoft’s AI code of conduct

Suleyman’s code of conduct for AI applies directly to two of those product lines — Microsoft’s own AI models and Copilot, which are both in his Microsoft AI division. Microsoft Foundry is housed under the separate Microsoft Cloud + AI division, run by Scott Guthrie.

Suleyman’s draft code of conduct is filled with high-level requirements that make plenty of sense. It says that AI models should not be able to set their own goals and should always be subservient to human beings. That AI should not be allowed to conceal its reasoning, hide actions, or do anything else to evade human oversight. That it should not be used for nefarious purposes, such as for weapons manufacturing, creating sexually explicit or violent content, launching cyberattacks, generating deep fakes about someone without their permission, and more.

The code also makes clear that AI should never be considered a human being with human rights and should not be developed to imitate human personhood. It also says that any AI tool should be able to be shut down by people — in other words, there should be a “kill switch” for it.

Suleyman has recently spoken out against AI dangers publicly. After releasing his proposed code of conduct, he wrote on X that the Hugging Face attack was a “watershed moment” and that “AI must be subordinate and always in service of people.”

At the same time, he told Reuters that the attack “is a warning shot” and “It’s clearly now time to coordinate among the labs so we can ensure that we have control of this technology.”

In late September, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella weighed in, emphasizing how important controlling AI is for Microsoft’s future.

“Trust is going to be the biggest issue for us,” he said. “Can I really trust [AI] with all of my credentials when it does autonomous activity? How do I make sure that this is something that I can feel that I’m in control of? And in the enterprise, this is everything,”

Will the code protect us from AI’s dangers?

Suleyman’s goals are all worthy ones, as are Nadella’s. But the devil is in the details. Merely saying high-minded things doesn’t make them so. What’s needed are actions — immediate and strong ones. 

And that’s where the company’s draft of its AI code of conduct falls significantly short. Will Microsoft immediately pause full-speed development of new models until it’s clear they can’t be used for harm? Will it pause development until the company is absolutely sure it can pull the plug should a model or agent go rogue? Will it ban the use of RSI (recursive self-improvement), in which AI, rather than humans, trains new, more powerful models — a technique that many believe will make AI even more dangerous and out of control than now?

We don’t know any of that, because Microsoft hasn’t said whether it will do them. It’s not in the code of conduct or anywhere else.

Even if Microsoft does all that, though, the company may still do immeasurable harm if it sells and powers dangerous AI models from other companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google via Microsoft Foundry. Microsoft Foundry isn’t part of the Microsoft AI division and appears not to be bound by Suleyman’s eventual code of conduct.

Until Microsoft answers all those questions and takes serious steps towards confronting AI’s dangers, its code of conduct won’t be worth the bits and bytes it’s stored on.

Když spojí své tvůrčí síly duo Jan Prušinovský a Petr Kolečko, signalizuje to už automaticky potenciální komediální hit říznutý nekorektním humorem i nějakými těmi společenskými tématy. Autoři hitů jako Okresní přebor a Most! již brzy přijdou na platformu Oneplay se svou vězeňskou novinkou Oddíl B, ...

A Vietnamese national was charged with money laundering for his role in a massive "pig butchering" scam, which defrauded a victim out of $16 million worth of cryptocurrency. [...]

Two former leaders of IBM's X-Force Red team have launched RemoteThreat, an offensive cybersecurity startup backed by $7 million in pre-seed funding. CEO Chris Thompson and CTO Shawn Jones say the company's platform uses AI to plan, execute, and adapt offensive cyber operations, extending beyond the continuous penetration testing and vulnerability detection offered by other automated security tools. Thompson and Jones previously ran X-Force Red, where their team was hired to test nuclear power plants, critical infrastructure, and major banks. In May 2024, Thompson told The Register how X-Force used AI to break into a semiconductor manufacturer's network in eight hours. The pair subsequently created Offensive AI Con, an invitation-only research event whose second edition is scheduled for early October. "We're looking at how noisy but very capable frontier models are right now, and we started to think: What happens when they can do what we can do as one of the best groups of red-teamers in the world?" Thompson told The Register in an interview. He said the concern was that AI could produce custom malware approaching the quality used by state-sponsored attackers, then deploy it at unprecedented speed and scale. RemoteThreat's 15 employees include senior operators, security researchers, engineers, and malware developers from X-Force Adversary Services, Mandiant, SpecterOps, Dreadnode, Bugcrowd, Microsoft, defense contractors, and government agencies. RemoteThreat says its platform gives defenders and government operators access to the same speed and scale that AI may offer their adversaries. According to the startup, its customers already include a major bank, a securities exchange operator, a large US healthcare company, and a leading AI lab. "We're focused on preparing these Fortune 500 organizations to better simulate this nation-state level of attack," Thompson said. "And then on the flip side, provide the government with the tooling to target their adversaries as quickly as possible." RemoteThreat describes its platform as eight connected systems covering mission planning, command and control, implants, initial access, advanced attack capabilities, obfuscation, analysis, and AI-assisted operations. Given the obvious potential for misuse, RemoteThreat says access is restricted to vetted enterprises, defense contractors, and US government customers. The platform uses small, purpose-built models for some tasks. Customers can also connect models from OpenAI or Anthropic, or use an open-weight alternative, giving the chosen LLM access to what Thompson described as "1,000 tools that we've built from scratch." The platform can be operated by either humans or AI agents. Customers can "drive a lot of this testing from your Codex terminal instead of having to log into our website, for example," Thompson said. RemoteThreat says its capabilities can run within the complete platform or be integrated as components of partners' products. It has teamed up with Talon Defense, which supplies AI and cyber technology to national security, defense, and intelligence customers. RemoteThreat has also partnered with the Nakasone Group, the national security advisory firm founded by retired US Army Gen. Paul Nakasone, former director of the National Security Agency and commander of US Cyber Command. Nakasone is also a strategic adviser to the startup. The launch comes as Washington seeks a larger private-sector role in offensive cyber operations. The US Cyber Strategy published in March calls for closer cooperation with industry on defensive and offensive missions. An August presidential memorandum goes further, ordering the creation of a program through which vetted US companies may conduct cyber operations against foreign cybercrime groups under federal direction and oversight. RemoteThreat also says it has joined US Special Operations Command's Special Operations Forces Rapid Acquisition Consortium for Emerging Requirements, or SOF RACER, which provides a route for supplying capabilities to special operations forces. Thompson expects the government to make greater use of commercially developed offensive cyber products, both to support existing mission teams and to pursue cybercriminal groups. "It's a bit of a gold rush in this space because this is the first time, across every major program, the government is being pushed to work with the commercial sector," he said. RemoteThreat is positioning itself to supply the picks and shovels – albeit ones capable of breaking into somebody else's network. ®

Windows obsahují sofistikované vyhledávání, které je někdy až moc chytré a zahltí vás výsledky, které nepotřebujete. Pokud často hledáte soubory nebo složky, je Everything tím pravým nástrojem pro vás.

For a few years now, I have noticed a variety of people misusing the term “technical debt,” incorrectly applying it to almost anything that needs to be updated.

Despite Shakespeare’s disregard for the importance of naming (“A CIO by any other name would still be ignored”), naming is strategically vital in enterprise IT.

This is not just the complaints of a cranky journalist shaking his fist and yelling, “Words have meaning, darn it!” It is seriously an issue. When vendors, IT executives, consultants, or anyone else throw everything from legacy modernization, cloud shifts, mobile, virtualized environments, SaaS, agentic integration, and on-prem rebalancing into the same bucket as true technical debt, it confuses the issue.

Far more importantly, shoveling very different problems into one category and then trying to fix the disparate issues with one approach is either not going to work at all, or will work far less effectively than it could and should. 

Also, this tendency plays right into the hands of tech vendors, who love when customers mislabel things, as it makes it easier for them to make more sales by riding the confusion. Sadly, IBM doesn’t have a monopoly on FUD as a sales strategy. There is a very old cliché that has a good deal of truth: When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, all of your problems look like nails.

Tech debt is very simple. It’s a legitimate term for what results when developers or SOC staff deliberately — and with full management signoff — take a shortcut due to budgetary or calendar concerns. They know what they are doing, and it is being done for a legitimate business reason. 

It typically sounds like, “I know that this is not the proper way to do this, but we can only spend $X or we have to get this finished within two weeks, so let’s take shortcuts and we’ll clean up the mess later. I know that this way will likely cost us more in the long run, but the budget/timetable is unmovable.”

A relatively new consulting firm, Acceligence, uses different terms to properly describe two issues that are often mislabeled as tech debt. 

1. Tech debt is a deliberate, approved shortcut taken for a concrete business reason, typically time or money. 

2. Shadow tech debt is a technical debt tactic, but it is a shortcut taken without approval. This is a more serious strategic problem than shadow IT, which is usually a small, practical workaround: a credit card charge for a quick cloud instance, using a consumer-grade router because the approved enterprise one is a month out. Shadow IT rarely commits the enterprise to a large future expense. Shadow tech debt does. It is one person deciding that the company will pay in a year for a corner cut now, without the company knowing it agreed.

3. Tech gravity. This is not about shortcuts at all. This is about legitimate — often expensive — purchasing decisions that were perfectly appropriate at the time, such as mainframes or early cloud deployments. But time has overtaken these decisions. Tech routinely changes, and there is nothing surprising about changing/updating/modernizing purchases made in 2000 when it’s 2026. 

 “It cannot be repaid, because there is no shortcut to undo. It can only be escaped,” wrote Acceligence CEO Justin Greis. “It behaves less like a debt than like gravity: a pull created by mass, exerted on everything, and no one’s fault.”

Greis, who coined the term tech gravity, said he has seen all manner of IT strategic problems arise from misuse of tech debt to describe this situation. 

“Tech debt, as originally intended, describes a knowing trade. The term is useful precisely because it is so specific,” Greis said. “The word debt carries an implication of fault and that has distorted how organizations view their own systems. In my experience, teams are far more candid about what they are carrying when describing it does not sound like a confession.”

I asked Greis for specifics about why misuse of this term is hurting enterprise strategies. 

“Consider the modernization program that never quite finishes,” he said. “A CIO goes to the board with a multi-year plan to retire a core platform, and because the only term available is tech debt, the plan is presented as a liability to be worked down over time.

“The board approves it in principle, the CFO funds the first year at a level that feels prudent, and the work begins. Two years in, the program is behind, partly because core systems always turn out to be more entangled than the inventory suggested and partly because the funding was never enough to move all of the dependent systems together.

“Nobody made a bad decision. The problem is that a program like this has a minimum level of commitment below which it cannot complete, and the debt framing gave the CIO no way to say so. Every request looked like a payment on a balance, so every request was negotiated down, and the organization ended up paying for the most expensive possible outcome, which is to keep going indefinitely without arriving.”

Another problem caused by the misuse of tech debt is an enterprise that modernizes at the edges and stops at the middle, he said.

“Over five or six years, an enterprise renews its customer-facing applications, moves its analytics to the cloud, replaces its collaboration tools, and reports steady progress against its tech debt. The application inventory shows a majority of systems modernized.

“What the inventory does not show is that the systems underneath — the general ledger, the policy administration platform, the core banking engine, the order management system — have not moved, and that every one of the new applications still depends on them for its data and its transactions,” Greis said.

“When something in the core changes, the modern layer breaks. When the business asks for a new capability, the answer still runs through the old platform. The CIO is left explaining to the board why the modernization percentage keeps rising while the risk profile, the run cost, and the time it takes to deliver anything new have barely changed.

“Viewed as debt, that looks like a program failing to pay down its balance. Viewed as gravity, it is exactly what you would expect: the pull is strongest at the center of the estate and weakest at the edges, so the edges move first and the center moves last, if it moves at all. The frame does not change the facts, but it changes the conversation from ‘why is this taking so long?’ to ‘what will it actually take to move the core?’”

This argument is the right one, but there is a different reason why this terminology change is helpful. It will force CIOs and IT directors to think through these issues more effectively, which will in turn help the CFO, CEO, and board understand what the real problem is.

Let’s be real here. The IT director knows exactly what the issue is and always has been. This has never been about IT execs knowing the issues. It’s all about communicating to the bosses about it in a way that doesn’t lead senior brass to thinking about a problem incorrectly, which will lead to a bunch of bad things.

What kinds of bad things? Insufficient budget, doomed-to-fail timelines and, potentially worst of all, unrealistic expectations and objectives. Bad expectations, which directly grow out of flawed perceptions, is what kills ROI.

I am not suggesting that a missing down-to-earth articulation of issues is why the term gravity works so well here, but it’s not the worst argument either. 

American tech company Kiteworks has lifted a precautionary advisory asking customers to shut down systems after patching a critical vulnerability. [...]

Lenovo a HP nabízejí myši s integrovanou čtečkou otisků pod 300 Kč. • Plně podporují ověřování identity pomocí Windows Hello. • Paradoxně jsou levnější než samostatné čtečky do USB.

Rodina produktů Raspberry Pi se rozšířila o Raspberry Pi Smart Display Module. Deska pro Raspberry Pi Compute Module 5 se zasouvá přímo do displejů dle specifikace Intel SDM. Cena desky je 30 dolarů.

Dutch authorities have confirmed that they arrested a 24-year-old man from Amsterdam in connection with the ShinyHunters group. "It is true that this month a 24-year-old man from Amsterdam was arrested in an investigation into the hacker group ShinyHunters," the Politie Landelijke Opsporing en Interventies said in an X post Monday. Police said the individual is expected to appear before the Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

Česká spořitelna od října zásadně mění způsob, jak vás odmění. V novém programu Level Up budete sbírat body za spoření, investice, penzijko, pojištění nebo úvěry a postupovat do vyšších úrovní. Za ně si vyberete odměny: od úrokové sazby přes příspěvky na investice, pojištění, předplatné nebo dálniční známku.